|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2005 : 04:12:48 [Permalink]
|
One question for you to ponder, pspano58, why does Hovind rely on lies?
Everyone makes an error now and then, but Hovind touts falsehood after falsehood that even other creationists find embarrassing.
Why do you think he does that? What does that say about his position?
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 04:54:38 [Permalink]
|
I have many times seen all of that but sledom so much of it in one place. As I have noted before, everybody has a flood story because floods are a common diaster.
Ok, where might I go to view these giant skeletons that have alledgedly been found?
quote:
2. Noah's ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts on them and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress.
Noah's ark, if it had ever been built, would not have been seaworthy as described, and please show me where the geologic record demonstrates that the earth was ever a cue-ball. Do you have any idea of the sheer violence involved in a mountain rising up in a matter of days? Noah & company would have been a bug-splat on the side of Ararat.
quote:
5. The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
o It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
o The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
o The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.
Moon pool! Oh my stars and garters! It's called a centerboard well, common today on sailboats, and if the ark had one big enough to do what you describe, it would have been a further weakening of an already flimsy hull. And, as there was only a single, tiny window, where did all the air come from? And where exactly does the Bible mention such a thing.
quote:
11. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.
Do pinnipeds do this? Or monotremes? Or birds? References, please.
quote:
12. All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.
I've always loved this one because it is such utter crap. If they were all vegetarians, that would mean there was no predatation and therefore animal populations would have exploded, consuming all of the edible the vegetation. You would not have been able to move without tripping over a starving Dimetrodon, or somedamnedthing. Heh, were lice vegetarians, too? Did you ever see an alligator eat an cabbage or a snake scarf a parsnip? It ain't on, bro. Their digestive systems are not set up for it and their dentation can't masticate it.
quote:
13. The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer lifespans, Adam's direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.
Oh, ye gods and little fishes! Apologetics at their worst. You have exactly no evidence to back up this preposterous claim, so I won't bother to ask for any.
quote:
17. Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark (see my Creation Seminar Part 3 video for more on this). Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.
And yet not a single strake nor treenail of the ark has been found. These stories and programs are all wishful dreaming and some were outright fraud. There was, a year ago, another expedition going up the north face of Ararat, but it was called off. I've heard that they might try again this year. I'll wager a month's disability check against a dead rat that they find jack-shit. All these clown will do is hand over a little tourist money to the locals, which is a good thing.
I really don't have the patience for this at the moment, so, I will once again refer to the Leipzig. I would love to see someone debunk it! I would send Marty a very snotty e-mail. 
According to the laws of physics, the flood as described is not possible, and if it were, the ark as described would have foundered and been reduced to kindling in the first hour. I advise spending less time lallygagging around Answers in Genesis and the ilk, and a little more in the library doing research. AiG et al are not good references for anything other than interesting ways of getting around factual evidence; rather like spiritual Luddites.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 06:05:27 [Permalink]
|
| Short legs? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 06:34:38 [Permalink]
|
Expired passports?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 07:27:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
18. The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then.
Gen 10:25:
quote:
Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.
Why do you think this means physical division of land? Why can this not be a division between people?
Actually, Ricky, this is classic early Genesis (and see below to note how you might be right!). Someone with an odd name shows up, and it's explained via the use of some bad pun.
In this case, you have a person Peleg, who's named "because in his time the earth was divided." In Hebrew, the word meaning "to divide" is palag. But an examination of the context of the verb shows us more. For instance, the noun derived from palag means channel or canal, and is often used in terms of irrigation (e.g. Lam. 3:48). As a verb, it is frequently used to mean to cleave a channel for rain (e.g. Job 38:25). Indeed, the Semitic cognates in, for instance, Ethiopic and Akkadian both mean "river" or "channel." The Hebrew noun pelagah (obviously from the root p-l-g means "stream." (It can also, BTW, Ricky, mean "divisions of a tribe" e.g. Judges 5:15).
All told, the best reading here isn't that the earth's land mass split up, but rather that people began to irrigate! Logically, this makes sense. After all, the argument above was that the many examples of flood myths from different cultures suggests that there must have been a flood. By this logic, a similarly catyclismic event like continents sliptting up would doubtless have also been an event to be recorded. But alas-- the best Biblical mention is the verse you just cited, and I can think of no other Near Eastern description of such a thing.
So, strike one. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/25/2005 07:28:58 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 08:19:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Okay. Examples of ineffective dating methods:
Carbon Dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Oh, the importance of citing things out of context! As has been shown, you likely got this from Hovind's webstie. I'm vitrually certain that you haven't actualy checked the article. Fortunately, though, I can. Here's the first line of the article:quote:
Carbon-14 dating is a useful and precise technique only in cases where both the initial 14C concentration of the sample and the magnetude of the postdepositional changes in isotpoe ratio unrelated to radioactive decay are known.
They go on to note that while wood is an excellent source of 14C dating because of "its relative resistance to alteration," with other objects care must be taken. They argue that "recognition of the existance of . . . extreme deficiencies is necessary so that erroneous ages are not attributed to freshwater biogenic carbonates."
The point of their article is clear enough: that only certain things can be reliably used for 14C-dating; other objects must be used with caution because of contamination. Factoring such contamination can at least minimize-- if not eliminate-- this problem.
In no way does this actually suggest that 14C-dating is unreliable or, as you argued earlier, thatquote:
if you date something where we actually know the age of the sample, it doesn't work. Therefore, how can I trust the results of dating a sample where we DON'T know the actual age. To do so, in my HUMBLE opinion, would be foolish and unscientific.
Obviously, this isn't the case. Instead, it's science warning other scientists to be careful, and showing how they can do so. If anything, it demonstrates that we can be more sure of 14C-dating, as scientists are aware of how to avoid potentially faulty means of testing!
Strike two.
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/25/2005 08:22:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 08:50:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Okay. Examples of ineffective dating methods:
You post this as if you wrote it. If you're just going to parrot Kent Hovind, you should give him credit.
Yes, the apparent radiocarbon age of marine creatures is a known problem, and attempts are being made to determine the marine resevoir age of many locations. Luckily, neither evolution nor the age of the Earth (or universe) depend on carbon-14 dates from marine creatures, nor do marine resevoir ages present a problem for non-marine radiocarbon dates.
And as this page shows in detail, all of the mammoth claims are simply lies. And they are lies which are now knowingly perpetrated by Kent Hovind and others, who've been presented with the facts several times, but choose to ignore them. He's not a very good Christian. Of course, the funniest part of this is that Dima was found in 1977, two years after the Pewe paper cited in your cut-and-paste.
Later on, Hovind cites Dalyrmple a few times, which is rather ironic given that he's written "Radiometeric Dating Does Work!," an excellent rebuttal to these "problems."...Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical. Even things that work well do not work well all of the time and under all circumstances. Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. It will probably fail, but what would a reasonable person conclude from that? That watches do not work? Hardly. And Hovind continues:quote:
In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected.
This is simply another lie. Hovind knows full well that radiometric dates are verified using several more methods than just looking to see what was piled on top of the sample.quote:
The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods.
Yeah, and it was developed by creationists. Too bad for them.quote:
"Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425.
Derek Ager is alleged to have encyclopedic knowledge of the radiometric dating of fossils? How very strange.quote:
Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column.
Well, gee, Kent, if the date came up as 50,000 years - the carbon-dating limit - it would mean nothing except to people like you.quote:
An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.
Where the range of dates for the methods overlap, they agree with each other. Hovind, of course, can't address that.quote:
In addition, A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach the point of equilibrium. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium.
There is no reason to believe that there ever will be a C-14 equilibrium in the atmosphere. C-14 is created in the atmosphere, and then sequestered in stuff made out of carbon.quote:
There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old!
No, it doesn't prove anything, although it is a hassle that we've exploded atomic bombs in the atmosphere, dumping a lot of extra C-14 into the air which wasn't there before. People don't often radiocarbon date stuff known to have been alive since 1945 for this very reason. The extra a-bomb C-14 makes them look too young.quote:
This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
Carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions: the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant...
This is also wrong. We've got ways of calibrating C-14 dates based upon measurable differences in C-14 over the years. Levels of C-14 have gone both down and up in the past. Year-by-year calibration dates go back over 11,000 years thanks to tree rings.quote:
...and its rate of decay has always been constant.
If the C-14 decay rate wasn't constant, we'd see the evidence of that in all sorts of things, especially since it would imply a different speed of light and other constants.quote:
Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
Not to a man who lies so much, of course they're not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 11:32:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Isn't that one of Hovind's claims? The speed of light is decreasing...
Him and others, yes. But they fail to take those assumptions and work through the physical implications. For example, if the speed of light and radioactive decay were so much higher less than 6,000 years ago, the Earth would still be a completely molten blob from the heat generated. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 12:55:47 [Permalink]
|
I wonder; how does one carbon date a snail shell, that contains no carbon of any sort?
I haven't paid a visit to Mr. Hovind's site in a long time -- he's such a bullshitter that it hasn't seemed worth while. Maybe I'll drop by and see if he's come up with anything new...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 13:30:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I wonder; how does one carbon date a snail shell, that contains no carbon of any sort?
filthy, snail shells are mostly calcium carbonate, or CaCO3. Those parts that aren't carbonate are still made of organic molecules (organic meaning "containing carbon"). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 13:49:48 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah when I told my family I wanted to be an organic chemist they laughed at me and called me a pothead, I didnt bother explaining it to them, now I keep my dreams to mself. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 14:30:10 [Permalink]
|
+quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I wonder; how does one carbon date a snail shell, that contains no carbon of any sort?
filthy, snail shells are mostly calcium carbonate, or CaCO3. Those parts that aren't carbonate are still made of organic molecules (organic meaning "containing carbon").
Damn! mental lapse, bigtime! :kicking self:
Thanks for the touch-up.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 12:05:54 [Permalink]
|
Boy, you guys really hate Hovind, don't you?
Maybe because his evidence proves macro-evolution is a fairy tale at best and a lie at worst, with absolutely no proof whatsoever except what evolutionists "assume" or "hope" may have happened, and an old earth is BS at best because the bottom line is, you don't really know jack shit, do ya?
When confronted with evidence from him, all you do is call him a liar, but you never address the claim directly, or disprove it, you simply say "he is a liar". At least be honest and admit that you are not open-minded about it, you want and hope and pray that macro-evolution is true and any evidence to the contrary must be attacked and ridiculed because it shows that you may actually be wrong.
I'm still waiting for scientific, indisputable, observed facts that macro-evolution occurred, and until it is proven, it should NOT be taught in our schools at taxpayer expense. Period.
You want to teach it as a theory that many scientists believe in, okay. That is fine. Creation should be taught as well because most people actually believe in it. But that's not the point.
I believe that NEITHER should be taught because either way it is not relevant to a normal education for children.
Teach them to read, write and do math. Leave the "religions" out of the schools, leave the politically correct doctrines out, stop giving them condoms and teaching them about alternative lifestyles.
If anybody wants this "stuff" to be taught, fine, start your own school and have people pay for it. Don't force ME and millions of others who do not agree with you, to fund your "religion".
Nice try. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
